The point of the blue checkmark, to both Twitter and their users, is to make the platform more valuable.

Previously it was used to give more confidence that someone is famous. That worked.

Now, it's changing purposes, but it makes as much if not more sense. You lose a bit of ability to tell who is famous, but in exchange you get more significant bot and spam prevention as well a less advertiser dependent revenue model.

> You lose a bit of ability to tell who is famous, but in exchange you get more significant bot and spam prevention as well a less advertiser dependent revenue model.

People who want to spam a cryptocurrency fraud will make a lot more than even a year's worth of Twitter Blue. Phone number verification is insufficient, you need to tie to a real world, unique identity to prevent spam.

And, Twitter has 450 million monthly active users (by some estimates - very hard to tell with how volatile the user base has been over the last few months). If you took an optimistic 1% conversion ratio for $100/yr subscriptions (typical freemium uptake metrics), that is $110 million dollars a quarter revenue.

Twitter used to get $1 bil in advertising revenue for quarter, which would still mean 90% of their revenue would come from advertising.

Unfortunately - estimates are that they have lost between 70 and 89% of their advertising revenue, the uptake for Twitter Blue is estimated to be well below 1%, and the leveraged buyout added a billion dollars of additional interest Twitter owes a year.

There's a general decline in advertising revenue, but some (such as myself) suspect the major brands looked at the volatility of Twitter and decided to target a disproportionate amount of their cuts there.

Phone number plus credit card is pretty strong, being two scarce resources combined.

They've only just begun to roll it out, are you assuming they will have 0 future growth only a few months into launching? Not only that, but the benefits of verifying have slowly ratcheted up, and with the algorithm now showing clear benefit I'd expect sharp growth.

Finally, why bring their revenue into this? That's a totally separate conversation. I'd be happy to have it, but not really related to whether this alternative verification scheme makes sense.

I brought revenue into it because you claimed that they got a new less advertiser-dependent revenue model. I argue that the mix of a healthy Twitter monetizing advertising and paid individual user accounts would still be 90% advertising.

Eh, I think you can tie the name to the bio for a blue check mark.

If some guy from Alabama is named Tim Sweeney it seems perfectly reasonable for them to be verified as Tim Sweeney, CEO of Alabama Woodworking Inc.

Like for India, how low in the cabinet do you allow a blue checkmark? Is it the same level as the US? By just making it about verification it solves the problem. If the persons Name + Bio isn't unique enough to identify them then they don't get a blue check.

That might work, although people are clumsy about looking up things online. But I doubt most people have distinct enough bios to qualify. Certainly not enough to have the majority of people able to pay $8/month.

You can change your bio. Twitter would either have to lock them at the time of verification, or have moderators approve every change.

I would pair it with a bio lock or something along those lines.

I mean its pretty ridiculous you can get verified and then change the description of who you are and has led to issues in the past where people change themselves to companies/celebrities and promote some crypto currency scams [1].

[1]: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/an-8-mess-twi...

No, identity verification is good for everyone regardless of fame. Basically it means a John Smith can’t be Tim Sweeney. The likelihood of Tim Sweeney impersonating another Tim Sweeney is remote.

> The likelihood of Tim Sweeney impersonating another Tim Sweeney is remote.

For $100 you can be Tim Sweeney. Or Adele. Pretty much anything non-profane.

Alternatively, you have things backwards. The odds that any Tim Sweeney would want to specifically imitate Epic's Tim Sweeney is remote. However, once they can, it only takes one to cause chaos. He might not be their first choice to emulate, but they know that they can. Or someone can seek them out.

Imagine shorting NVIDIA and then having a Tim Sweeney tweet that Epic will require Radeon cards for the best graphics.

There are multiple people named Donald Trump or Joe Biden. Think of just offering them the option to create chaos either because they want to or because someone offers them a bribe.

Besides all that, I have no idea why identity verification is good for everyone. A lot of people would prefer to be pseudonymous.

So…for John Smith to impersonate Tim Sweeney on Twitter he needs to spend $100, go in front of a judge to petition a name change, change his name on everything else in his life, including all sorts of documents, policies, ids, passports, etc…creating a huge legal paper trail (that will cost a ton of money) then spend another $8 a month just to get a blue check to make snide comments on a social media platform? Seems like a fair amount of effort just to impersonate and troll IMO, probably not worth the effort.

Also, in the case of a Tim Sweeney impersonating another Tim Sweeney and wrecking havoc there are some big statistical hurdles to overcome. You need to be a Tim Sweeney, you need to be familiar with another famous Tim Sweeney, you need to want to wreck havoc in a way that only The Tim Sweeney can, and you need to be dumb enough to think you will get away with it. Seems remote.

> A lot of people would prefer to be pseudonymous. Ok. So don’t pay the $8/mo for identity verification on Twitter. Problem solved.

> You need to be a Tim Sweeney

No, you need to find a Tim Sweeney who is willing to help you out. If there's money involved, it's pretty doable. You can get the real influencers to tweet about your product for a not-insane sum. I imagine the cheapest person who shares a famous name isn't that expensive.

Meanwhile, you don't have to get away with it for long. Not that it it seems there is anything to "get away with". Does it violate any rules for a non-Epic CEO Tim Sweeney to talk about how much he hates NVIDIA's new cards?

You just added more statistical complexity to the scenario, so not only do you need to be willing to take on all that risk and effort to impersonate another person, but you also need to recruit someone with the same name who is willing to undertake the scheme with you?